Wikipedia:Peer review/Celtic F.C./archive1

Celtic F.C.
I want to have this article peer reviewed. So all comments are appreciated. --Chazz88 14:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the Recent Achievements section should be moved into the History section. A lot of people don't like having lots of short sub-sections, so it might be an idea to see if some of them could be merged. I think Celtic's European Cup finals could do with a bit more detail as well. It seems strange that there's more on John Barnes' incompetence than both of them put together. CTOAGN (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The article suffers from a severe lack of references. i.e the second paragraph ...one of the most famous football stadia in Europe. According to whom?
 * The article could do with an image or two.
 * Consider jettisoning the Famous Celtic Fans section. Anyone whose support for the club is particularly notable should have it mentioned in their article, not Celtic's.
 * The section An anti-Celtic agenda? looks POV.
 * I agree with CTOAGN that the European Cup finals deserve more attention. Oldelpaso 10:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the ones off the top of my head, might add a few more later. Qwghlm 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * IFK Göteborg and Arsenal F.C. are both featured articles about football clubs, and might be useful for comparison.
 * The phrase "one of the most famous/greatest/biggest..." is used a lot - if an instance can be backed up with references then fine, add them. Else it's just weasel words.
 * The History section is enormous, far too big. Ideally it should be moved to a separate article, e.g. History of Celtic F.C.. Recent Achievements should also be removed, and become a subsection of that page (and ideally slimmed down as well - does John Barnes' five-minute reign really warrant four paragraphs?) In their place, have a briefer History section written in summary style, and a link to the main article at the top.
 * An anti-Celtic agenda? looks quite POV - the fact there is a question mark in the header says it all. Either get rid of it, or back it up with facts and references.
 * Although Old Firm has its very own article, I am surprised there isn't more than a cursory mention of Celtic's Catholic heritage and the club's rivalry with Rangers in this article - a brief and neutrally-worded discussion of it (with references) would add much-needed additional context.
 * Top scorers should be tabulated (and the two tables should probably be combined). The number of games each player played would be useful and informative.
 * Separate club records from national records that the club has set; perhaps style them a little better too - e.g. in the manner of Arsenal F.C. statistics.
 * Get rid of famous fans section - it's an unmaintainable and possibly huge list.
 * Tabulate the managers list.
 * Un-bold the players in the Famous Celts section. Roy Keane should not be in there - he hasn't even played a match for the club yet.
 * External links should be organised better - separate it into official/news/fan sites.
 * Could do with some more photos, but I know it can be tricky finding sports pictures with free licences.
 * I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the article needs references from authoritative sources, especially for any specific historical claims (e.g. did Jock Stein really instigate the "Tracksuit manager" trend? Says who?).